ISSN 2330-717X

Ron Paul: Intervention Fail, Back To Libya – OpEd


The use of the US military overseas seems to have become so commonplace that the Obama Administration can bomb a country with no Congressional input and very little media interest at all. Such was the case on Friday, when the US military killed some 49 people in a bombing run near Tripoli, Libya.

We had to bomb Libya, we are told, because Libya has become a hotbed of ISIS activity. The group has been moving training facilities into the country, taking advantage of the chaos. Ironically, it was five years ago this week that the “Arab Spring” uprising began in Libya — an uprising that was supported by US military force and led to the overthrow of the Libyan government and the murder of its leader, Gaddafi.

We were told that the US had to intervene to overthrow Gaddafi so that democracy and human rights could flourish, yet five years after the US-led intervention no one would argue that the country is better off. Instead of bringing Libya democracy, US intervention brought Libya ISIS. So now the US has to go back and bomb Libya some more to take care of ISIS.

Will this work? No. Logic tells us you cannot do more of what caused a problem and expect it to fix the problem.

As Middle East analyst Hillary Mann Leverett observed after Friday’s US attack on Libya, “the problem is, for each one of these targeted killings, what we have seen in the data that at least two more people sign up to join.”

The United States has made a habit of lecturing other countries about the need to follow the rule of law, yet this seems to be a matter of “do as we say, not as we do.” How else can we explain a US attack overseas with no Congressional input? Certainly there was no Congressional authorization for Friday’s bombing. The Administration claimed that its authority came from the 2001 authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. But ISIS did not even exist on 9/11. How can the 2001 authorization be twisted to include bombing Libya in 2016?

Libya has been in chaos since its 2011 “liberation,” but the country’s interim government strongly objected to Friday’s US bombing, claiming they were not consulted before the US attack. They called US air strikes a violation of Libya’s sovereignty and of international law.

They have a point. But the most important point we must learn from the destruction of Libya – and of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on – is that US interventionism has been a complete failure. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the last 15 years, societies have been broken apart, economies have been destroyed, and property has been flattened. There are no success stories. The neocon plan to remake the Middle East has only succeeded in destroying the Middle East. As a consequence, we are far less safe than before the “war on terror” was launched. ISIS and other terrorist groups have expanded their territory and have even been able to attack in Europe and the US. Our currency has been debased to pay for the trillions of dollars spent in this no-win war. The connected elites have gotten rich while the middle class has gotten poorer.

Intervention has failed. It is time to stand up to the neocons and their liberal interventionist collaborators and say “no more!”

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

Ron Paul

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and politician who served for many years as a U.S. Representative for Texas. He was a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012.

3 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Intervention Fail, Back To Libya – OpEd

  • February 22, 2016 at 6:41 am

    I am not a libertarian, but on the above I agree with Ron Paul. Enough is enough! as Bernie often says.

  • February 24, 2016 at 6:42 am

    Thanks, Ron Paul, for calling things by their real name. Unfortunately, we, the peace loving people, have no say and we see things wrong: for the US government, the destabilization and destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan, Central Africa, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen – Iran is intended to follow before going on to Russia, Central Asia and China – are not policy failures. The destruction and destabilizations are the desired end outcome: complete fragmentation of the Middle East and Africa into warring fiefdoms which the US believes it can control more easily and prevent from having any political or economic importence. Hence the complete indifference to international law and national sovereignty of these countries. The US doesn’t have to care: stop us if you can, we have the most lethal and technologically advanced weapons. The entire world is afraid of the US government. The US is the most severe and destructive sponsor of terrorism. That this is all in the name of national security for America – well, yes: if national security means the security in power of the ruling elite and the guarantee of their privileges. The US seeks world hegemony – but with economic competitors like the EU, Russia, China, Iran who have either better products (EU, China) or larger energy reserves, that hegemony is difficult to achieve – unless the competitors are destroyed, fragmented and subjugated by force under US dictate. That is what the US has been doing during both the Bush and Obama administrations. Obama destabilized and destroyed 8 countries in 7 years of his presidency. All leftist governments in Latin America have been undermined with corruption investigations in which the US really has no jurisdiction but plays the major role. Simply put: the Republicans and the Democrats dream of a world empire, but on $7.25/hr wages inside the US that is difficult to reach. Increasing the US minimum wage to revive the economy is also taboo because it would impart a political voice to the masses. Poverty has no voice, the middle class when paid properly, will demand a political say and that would easily mean the end of the Washington elite. These underlying “dilemmas” taint the elections now: Trump and Sanders are being vilified while Hillary – a par excellence status quo establishment candidate – is played up. Hillary will likely lose against Trump – now the Repubs are scrambling to anoint Rubio as their chosen guy because he accepted to be a complete vassal of the Republican hawks. These are all the same methods: destroy countries to be better than them, to control their resources and prevent their economic development; destroy a fair and free election to guarantee the status quo: destruction of the world to establish American hegemony.

    Benie for president.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.